You are completely ignoring the most important question. Can methanol be produced without consuming more energy than it creates, particularly with regard to fossil fuels, once all inputs are accounted for? I've seen no credible evidence that this is possible with any existing or near term likely technology. I'd be happy to be wrong but so far I see methanol fuel production as merely a less stupid version of ethanol fuel production. Same fundamental issues exist. It still is a carbon based fuel with the pollution issues that implies, it still is a net energy loss and it still results in larger net pollution once all inputs are accounted for. If it helps here and there with specific problem then great, but I'm not exactly going to get excited about it.

Cute how you think there is this vast amount of "wasted" land that we can raise crops on without any work or energy consumption at all with no detrimental environmental effects. Look, I think methanol is underutilized too but I see no evidence that it is anywhere near as easy or efficient to use as you make it out to be at scale. Furthermore while it is cleaner than coal or oil on its own, it still pollutes in much the same way as fossil fuels. At best it mitigates the problem but it doesn't make it go away.

Which is a problem but one that alcohol fuel production isn't going to solve or improve.

If you read what I wrote I said that soil quality was a minor factor. (Though I disagree that soil quality is completely unimportant)

Great. Even if we converted them all today (which isn't easy or cheap), now you are up to 14 billion gallons and the electricity needed to run the biorefineries mostly comes from fossil fuels, especially coal. Furthermore starch derived ethanol is a very different process than cellulose derived ethanol. Plants can be converted but it's not nearly as trivial as you make it sound. Obviously we CAN create production capacity but I see little evidence so far that we should.

Perennial crops still need water, pest control, harvesting, tending, processing, and some amount of fertilizing, ALL of which require oil and other petroleum products. Methanol would likely be a big improvement on ethanol but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of eliminating the need for oil inputs and it's not even clear if it would get the need for such inputs below the energy output of the methanol produced. I don't have any problem with using methanol as a fuel source (at least no more than any fossil fuel) but so far the thermodynamics and economics of it just don't seem to make any sense other than as a supplemental or byproduct source of bio-fuel. Replace oil? Not going to happen.

It might help a bit at the edges but there are reasons we don't use those locations beyond just the soil quality. Difficult landscapes, poor irrigation, remote locations, etc. And if there is money to be had, it will compete with food crops to some degree. The only question is how much.

A "good chunk"? Try the vast majority. There is essentially no industrial scale bioreactor on anything close to the scale relevant here. Right now the total capacity for methanol production in the US is 2.6 billion gallons annually, most of which is made from natural gas. Compare that with the 133 billion gallons of gasoline consumed in 2012. That doesn't even count diesel and other fuel products from oil.

They are both computers and the functions they serve are no different at all That's like saying a PC and a Mac are fundamentally different because their software was incompatible. The mere fact that software written at the time for one wouldn't work on the other could not be less important. What is important is the job they did. PCs gradually took over all the jobs we once used mini-computers for and the companies that built to those products went away. DEC was bought by Compaq, etc. Companies that come late to the party on the new technology often (though not always) have a hard time catching up. Intel underestimated the growth of mobile chips and now is scrambling to catch up to ARM and it isn't clear if they will succeed. And if Intel is having a hard time I can't see AMD having an easier time of it.

Several flaws with that reasoning. 1) Other companies have competing products already and AMD would have to provide a compelling reason to switch from their competitors who already are in place. Displacing an existing customer relationship is difficult at the best of times. 2) AMD products generally do not have any significant and lasting technological advantage over their competitors. 3) AMD is not the lowest cost producer (that would be Intel) and really cannot compete effectively on price. Intel can easily undercut them on price at almost any time and still make money doing it. 4) What is good enough now will not be good enough in a year and AMD's competitors products will improve in the mean time. Waiting for the market to come to them is a VERY dangerous strategy.

There is a very good chance that they are. Given their sadly pathetic track record I'd inclined to be doubtful of their chances until shown evidence to the contrary. AMD has mostly made good products but they generally always seem to be a step behind the curve

Because low end products have a way of supplanting high end products in time. PCs replaced most mini-computers even though initially they were inferior products. When was the last time you used a mini-computer? If AMD only competes at the high end of the market they run the risk of being slowly crushed as ARM chips become more capable over time. Intel recognizes this threat and is attempting to address it directly instead of pretending it doesn't exists. Even if they do stay at the high end of the market, it's unclear what if any advantage they have that will allow them to remain a product of choice there. Intel and others are perfectly capable of producing high end products too and Intel has a cost advantage over AMD as well.

Stuff like this is a big part of why AMD has remained something of an also-ran all these years.

Most biodiesel is essentially a by-product. It's a nice way to reduce waste and arguably worth doing but let's not pretend that there is enough to go around to really make a big dent in oil consumption overall. And NOTHING is "pure benefit". There are drawbacks to everything. Diesel isn't the cleanest burning fuel available and it has all the problems you get from any form of fossil fuel when it comes to pollution. Good? Yes. "Pure benefit"? Not remotely.

There is close to no industrial scale production of biofuels from algae so their benefit can hardly be objectively measured at this point.

Ahh, conspiracy theory rears its ugly head. Perhaps you might consider that using plant derived alcohols as fuel on a vast scale might simply be economically stupid? It's a lot more likely explanation.

They still require arable land, oil, fertilizer, transport, tending, harvesting, refining and more. I've not seen any biofuel based on planting and harvesting crops that shows credible evidence of being more efficient than simply refining the oil directly. It sounds like a good idea (plants = green, right?) but once you account for the entire system it simply makes things more complicated and sometimes more polluting with no actual improvement at the end of the day. Sure there are plenty of better feedstocks than corn but at the end of the day that isn't the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is establishing how oil->alcohol->fuel is more efficient and/or less polluting than oil->fuel directly. Any data that doesn't address that question is a waste of money, brains, oil and time.

That does not the same thing as saying you can create a net energy increase from methanol or that once all factors are accounted for that it is less polluting than just refining oil directly. Modern agriculture essentially converts oil into crops - both from fertilizers (which are oil derived) as well as transport and planting/tending/harvesting. With ethanol/methanol you are converting the crops back into oil products. For that to make sense you have to establish that there is somehow a net usable energy gain and/or that it is net less polluting from the oil-alcohol-fuel cycle than the oil-fuel cycle. I've seen no credible evidence that the oil-alcohol-fuel process is in any way more efficient or less polluting on a net basis than just refining the oil directly to fuel.

How do you think methanol would be produced at industrial scale? Farming at industrial scales requires oil and lots of it. It not only would not break the cycle there is a very strong potential it would make it less efficient and more polluting than it already is AND it would tie up arable land for fuel instead of food.

I think using ethanol is basically retarded. We're using fossil fuels to do a bunch of farming to produce a bunch of fossil fuels with lower energy density than the ones that went into the farming and doing so basically as a subsidy to corn farmers. Stupid policy.

That said:

Which has exactly what to do with ethanol? HFCS is a function of price supports and import restrictions for sugar. HFCS is cheaper as a result. Take away the price supports and the need for HFCS will drop. All of this has precisely nothing to do with ethanol policy aside from the fact that corn growers benefit from both products.

Ethanol production isn't at such a level that it causes starvation. There is no lack of reasonably priced food in the USA (see obesity crisis) though in some cases there is a distribution problem.

Citation please. I oppose the use of ethanol as a mandated fuel but I've seen no evidence this has occurred. It's certainly *possible* but that's not the same thing.

Only engines that weren't designed for ethanol. Again, our ethanol is a dumb thing to use as a fuel for the most part but that doesn't mean it cannot be used without damaging a properly designed engine. It's old engines that weren't designed with ethanol in mind that are the problem. It's like dumping a small amount of diesel into a gasoline engine. Might run but it's not good for it.

He got plenty of votes from plenty of people outside of Texas. And the people RE-ELECTED him and there was no debate on that one. While I think that was a huge mistake, obviously enough people liked him well enough that he got to spend 8 years in the white house.

"Couple thousand"? By your own numbers we should expect around 360 murders (48/100,000*750,000), most of which will not occur anywhere near where most people actually go. Tens of thousands work downtown and Ford Field, Comerica Park, Joe Louis Arena, Detroit Institute of Art, Cobo Hall, Wayne State University, several casinos and quite a few other attractions are downtown. Few people ever have a problem. Get a clue.

Why would I want to avoid either Detroit or the snow? Literally millions of people go to Detroit every year without any incident whatsoever. Most of Detroit City is no more dangerous than any other major metro area in the US. An most people DON'T LIVE IN DETROIT CITY.

Plus I like to ski and skate. Why would I avoid the snow?

Wow. One week of cold and one week of hot. However did you manage to survive? [/sarcasm]

Wuss.

Not as much software as some other places but that is changing FAST. Cars are getting a lot of software these days and so is the equipment used to make them. Plus a lot of software companies have a presence in the area including Google and some other big names. University of Michigan produces a lot of pretty good software talent and places like Ann Arbor are great places to start tech ventures.

Software is just a small, though important, part of technology. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook hardly comprise the entirety of the technology universe.

Bullshit. Where did you live? Oakland, McComb an Washtenaw counties are all very nice places to live.

The weather in Michigan is tremendous unless you are a complete wuss about a little snow. If you actually like to go outside the weather is terrific, particularly if you like boating. Never more than 80 miles from one of the Great Lakes anywhere in Michigan. In the summer I never been anyplace with better weather. Detroit Metro has about 4 million residents who think you are a big old wuss.

Furthermore there are terrific food establishments and markets in the Detroit Metro area. Roast, Zingermans, Eastern Market and lots lots more. There are high quality grocery stores and farmers markets everywhere. The fresh produce is tremendous.

Wanted: People who are smart enough to work in tech AND smart enough to actually get facts before making stupid public statements.

Seriously, few people actually live in Detroit City and that isn't where most of the jobs are - most live outside and it's perfectly safe most places. I'm pretty sure there are neighborhoods in San Francisco and Boston and Austin that the tech workers avoid. No different in Detroit.